I can't get over the fact that 'they' have only tried this now, much like the solid state propulsion for ships that was messed with a decade ago. The advantages of doing so are obvious. For those nattering naybobs who have previously commented, who state that low speed propellers are just as good/better, I can argue otherwise. Solid state propulsion will be still harder to detect, with fewer/no resonances, and how do you make a propeller radar-invisible? Can you? Not easily. A slow-moving propeller is also extremely unwieldy and it wants to hit the ground, the launch apparatus, and nearby obstructions. To mahonj, who asked how VTOL could be quietly accomplished: how about a disposable hydrogen balloon? After being lifted by it, just let go of it. The hydrogen source could also be what powers the fuel cell that powers the array.... ok power density would be an issue. Shut up. To someone who complained of exposed wires at 20,000 volts: that's not unusual. Bug zappers.

@EP, any car uses petroleum or gas resources, and that includes BEVs. The amount of transportation that doesn't do so is infinitesimally small. (Not bragging, but I can do it, as my employer has solar chargers at my job and I drive a Prius Prime)

Take a good look at that car.... I think we have a contender for second ugliest car in human history, behind 1st place 2016 Pruis Prime.

Reading the chart or opening it separately to read: COMPLETE FAIL.

@ SJC: I am surmising (don't know it to be fact) that not enough heat would be made from this new PEM technology and that the actual temp isn't high enough anyway. And, once you extract enough heat from this new fuel cell, you'll drop its operating temperature below the minimum it needs for electricity production. I'm not just a nay-sayer, I'm very much in favor of a simple fuel cell design that can run on other than hydrogen (for example, natural gas.

"Despite representing only 30% of the country’s entire passenger vehicle fleet, diesel vehicles are responsible for 80% of NOx emissions." NO THEY ARE NOT. Diesel passenger cars are responsible for a small fraction of NOx and PM 2.5 emissions. There are many sources of these emissions besides diesel exhaust. What's more, ALL emissions-CO, CO2, volatile organic compounds, NOx, PM 2.5, etc, are all headed downward quite significantly. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-air-pollutants-8/transport-emissions-of-air-pollutants-4

I think electric cars will really take off- and the rush to mass adopt will take care of the pollution problem just fine. I think they should simply let the existing car fleet run its normal life, and replace city buses and construction equipment with natural gas powerplants. That will work just fine and would be a lot less wasteful.

I thought lean burn engines actually produced hotter temperatures and I also thought hcci was recently revealed to produce excessive PM 2.5 and NOx. Am I wrong?

I wish this article gave some insight into whether this has any hope of becoming practical.

What a colossal waste!

@Lad: Unless you need to travel long distances, like all truckers, or anyone towing a camper, for example. So, no.

Count me as not in the 'just good marketing' camp. This IS in fact a bold move- the first major manufacturer to cease offering a straight gasser is bold. Now I'm hoping to see the next step in hybrid range-extender engines: OPOC configs and linear generator configurations. Fuel economy can go sky-high once this happens. And once that happens, the price of liquid fuel won't matter as much, because you're using so little of it. That means the liquid fuel can reasonably be derived from renewable sources. I'm watching the Toyota Linear Generator efforts closely... I wish more companies would get in this game. I bought a Prius Prime Plus on March 3rd, and I'm still on my 3rd tank of gas. I love the car and I have discovered many side benefits. For example, stop-and-go traffic: on battery power I'm not polluting, not generating excessive heat, and with the electric ac compressor running just fast enough, I can stay comfortable. Was a big help while waiting in line to see the fireworks the other day.

no, still got it wrong.... I meant to say "2 cylinder OPOC natural gas HYBRID setup'. I'm such a jerk

I meant to say '2 cylinder OPOC natural gas setup'.

Having been burned by the rip-off crooks at SEVERAL VW dealers in Connecticut, and then royally screwed with a 2010 Jetta TDI Sportwagen, I am firmly in the 'never again' camp on VW. I now drive a Toyota Prius Prime, which I love! I drive it most of the time in electric only mode, and since buying the car March 3rd 2017 I've used 2 tanks of gas! But I really like VW's move here. Natural gas is plentyful and very cheap. It burns very cleanly. What I would really like to see would be a 2 cylinder OPOC hybrid setup. That would be tough to beat and would use existing technology. However, if it comes from VW I will never buy it. The dealers are crooks.

The ARB is not picking a fight, they are simply making a request. What's more, they cite the most absurd reason possible for doing so- "... recent studies have found that there are significant diesel exposure disparities by race and income among residents living in close proximity to most of the major railyards in California." Meaning 'no fair, railyard diesel exposure isn't racially balanced'. Putting race into pollution exposure limits is as nutty as it gets, although yeah, its California. Citing 'not proving a negative' (your last sentence) is equally absurd. There are some things that just aren't worth regulating to death. Regulating the lifeblood of the nation is one of them, if the strategy is to eventually regulate them out of existence. Not going after ocean-going ships is your first clue as to how irrational much of this regulation is. When the political left recognizes how difficult it has become to conduct business in this country, when they realize that a no-comprimise approach is unworkable, republicans, business, and providers will get on board with regulation. But not until then.

Not a chance in hell those numbers will happen. The market is certainly growing, but it's only large enough for one Tesla at the moment and for many years to come.

@ Lad, Right you are. I did notice that during the Carter, Clinton and Obama years all pollution was prevented, and those were the only years that caring existed.

@ al_vin: Drive either one and some people in this forum will label you 'murderer'. That's what I was called for driving a jetta tdi.

pure b.s., and next, even talking to someone in a car will be banned.

(affordably cleaned up, sorry)

In large diesel vehicles the up front costs of the after treatment systems are quite manageable. Large diesel vehicles can be affordably and cost a lot less than FCV. So.... this ban is pointless. And I have nothing against FCV or BEV vehicles.

Arnold: That's an interesting link. It does look like that is where we are headed, but there are two ways to get there. One is by heavy-handed regulation led by anti-business leftists, who put millions of people out of work, destroy industries, and make everyone equally miserable. The other way is to take it more slowly and let it be led more by entrepreneurs. That's the smarter way. Take the horrible red state of Texas for example: There are some pretty big renewable energy initiatives going on there, led by private capital. A bureaucratically mandated end to fossil fuels and a forced transition to electrification is a very bad idea- that is merely calling for utopia in which the sacrifices and the bills are suffered by someone else.

Why be critical of the university when this discovery may be in its infancy? It they are unequivocally saying these electrolytes have 100x the capacity of existing ones, that may be the whole bit of news- and it is very good news. They may be exhibiting caution and prudence and also trying to keep the chinese from copying this before they can commercialize it. You guys are snarling like Henrik upon hearing good news. And yes, I've watched plenty of promising announcements turn into vaporware. Eeestor, for one. Yes mahon, good point- you have to wonder what provisions they have to address the potential in shorting out, physical damage to these caps.

Henrik, you have been railing at an unhealthy level lately. The reality is there will still be manufacturers not making BEVs by 2525, and none of them will go bankrupt for that reason either. And there are several VERY monied companies which may go into the car business from scratch: Apple, Google, etc. Niche car makers will always spring up, and a few of them will grow. You have been ranting like an idealist lately. Try to calm down. P.S. : Bernie lost.